Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of
Creationism is a patchwork of thoughtful essays on evolution and
creationism from some prominent voices in science education and
philosophy. According to the editors of the volume, the aim of the
book is to "address the challenges of teaching about scientific origins
in the context of religious concerns" (p ix). This text is an excellent
contribution to the Counterpoints: Studies in the
Postmodern Theory of Education series because of its polyvocal representation
of the evolution/creationism controversy.

Polyvocality is a postmodern
textual representation that showcases
multiple, often non-convergent,
viewpoints (Guba and
Lincoln 2005). The aim of a polyvocal
text is to highlight the complexity
of an issue by problematizing
rather than resolving.
Traditional texts offer solutions;
polyvocal texts ask questions. The
editors of Teaching about
Scientific Origins prepare the
reader for a polyvocal style by stating:
"It needs to be stressed that
there is not a single account of
how the authors in this book see
the relationship between science
and religion nor of how we envisage
that that relationship should
be taught, if it is to be taught at all"
(p 8).

Even without the projection of
a single metanarrative, twelve of
the thirteen chapters are written
from the scientific consensus position,
as supported by National
Science Education Standards
(National Research Council 1996)
and by science organizations
(AAAS 1990, 1993), that evolution
is the cornerstone of the biological
sciences and that teaching biology
without evolution is a mismanagement
of the science curriculum.

The first third of the book looks
at the history, sociology, and politics
of teaching evolution as
viewed from outside of the classroom.
The second third of the
book shifts argumentation. Here
the authors either present an argument
for a particular position, such
as teaching creationism or evolution,
or they dissect the arguments
that others have employed. Within
this second portion of the book is
a chapter presenting a creationist
perspective on teaching evolution,
notably the only chapter not
reflecting the views of national
and international science organizations.
Finally, the last third views
the professional and personal
nature of the evolution/creationism
controversy through the lens
of teacher and student. These chapters
describe the impact of the
controversy in classrooms and recommend
ways of dealing with it,
such as insisting on respectful
interpersonal relationships, particularly
with students who may have
creationist beliefs.

Beginning the first third of the
book, Randy Moore and Michael
Ruse examine the historic politics
that led to the modern controversy.
Moore describes the social discord
between evolution and creationism
as it was expressed in the
late 19th century and in early 20thcentury
politics. In the second half
of the chapter, he answers some
questions that teachers have about
the legal boundaries to teaching
evolution (or creationism) in public
schools.

Ruse writes specifically about
"Christianity" and "Darwinism,"
emphasizing the contrasting epistemologies
that define the modern
evolution/creationism controversy.
He challenges contemporary
polarized debates about science
and religion, referring to such conflicts
as remnants of the 19th century.
Using Richard Dawkins, a biologist
and vocal atheist, as a focus,
Ruse describes how arguments
from the extreme ends of the
belief spectrum — such as arguments
between evolutionary dogmatists
and fundamentalist creationists — anchor science and
religion to a common, confrontational
center point.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 shift the
reader’s attention toward the argumentation
tactics used in the broad
conflict between science and religion
as well as strategies used by
proponents within specific
domains, such as creationists. David
Mercer conducts a highly philosophical
examination of the conflict
between science and religion,
criticizing the tendency to oversimplify
the nature of both science and
religion. Media sources and public
science particularly are chastised
for giving such oversimplified representations.
Mercer recommends
that we talk about science and religion
in a more humanistic way that
is representative of the manner in
which the controversy is lived and
that we think about the science curriculum
through an inclusive social context that he calls "science studies"
(p 53).

Robert Pennock traces the
emergence of "intelligent design"
(ID) creationism in schools and
specifically focuses upon the ID
proponents’ argument to "teach
the controversy" of biological evolution
in science classrooms, dissecting,
by way of example, a video
developed by ID advocates intended
to show teachers how to legally
"teach the controversy about
Darwin." Pennock describes the ID
argument as "smoke and mirrors,"
contending that the ID argument
intentionally and strategically
neglects science in order to promote
its non-scientific goals. In the
concluding remarks, his perspective
on the debate is clear: teach
real science.

Michael Poole unpacks and
redistributes what he calls "areas of
difficulty" between science and
creationism, where meanings are
in conflict when considered from
creationist versus scientific perspectives.
They include understandings
about the age of the
earth, chance, atheism, naturalism,
explanation, reification, and evolutionism.
Poole develops the essay
by first making a statement of conflict
and then examining it from
scientific and religious perspectives.
For example, he examines
ideas that connect science and
atheism by discussing the statement
"Science is often presented
as an atheistic activity that makes
no place for God" (p 83). I particularly
appreciate how Poole
resolves the conflict about science
and atheism with a description of
how the omission of religion from
science is not a denial of religion:
"It need be no more surprising to
the religious scientist not to find
God mentioned in science texts
than to find that Henry Ford is not
mentioned in the instruction booklet
of that make of car" (p 84).

Shaikh Abdul Mabud argues that
evolution, as it is taught in schools
and represented in selected British
textbooks, is treated as "fact" and
does not provide science students
with a balanced perspective, offering
arguments for and against evolution.
A creationist from the
Islamic faith, he uses many of the
arguments found in other creationist
literature, such as challenges to
homology, complex biochemical
events, and natural selection.
Mabud is the only strong anti-evolution
voice in the text, but the
inclusion of this chapter shows
how polyvocal texts break from
authoritarian truth notions.

The next five chapters examine
the evolution/creationism controversy
from the perspective of
teacher and/or student. Several
authors tell personal stories about
their experiences with the evolution/
creationism conflict in the
classroom. Wolff-Michael Roth presents
a discourse analysis of conversations
with a high school
physics student who deliberated
on his personal conceptions of science
and religion. Roth’s analysis
untangles some of the complex
and multifaceted relationships
between self, science, and religion,
providing insight into how science
and religion interact in lived experience.
The chapter concludes by
encouraging teachers to consider
the complexity of human understanding
of science and religion
and recommending that teachers
find ways to discuss what Roth
calls the "different life domains"
(science and religion) with students
in the hope that such conversations
will translate into students’
having a personal understanding
of how different domains
interact in their own lives (p 122).

David L Haury emphasizes the
role of curriculum in the evolution/
creationism controversy.
Observing that human evolution
has been overlooked in science
standards documents and biology
curricula,Haury blames the human
evolution gap in American biology
curricula on the prevalence of creationist
ideology and goes on to
describe several concepts that,
combined, serve as a rationale for
teaching human evolution. These
concept — which include the
nature of science, evolutionary theory,
human family, ecological identity,
worldview, and spirit of discovery
— mediate dichotomous
arguments such as science versus
religion (or evolution versus creationism).
Like many of the other
authors in this portion of Teaching
about Scientific Origins, Haury’s
approach is scientifically grounded
while remaining considerate of
students’ beliefs.

Lee Meadows explains that conflict
management, rather than conflict
resolution, is an appropriate
instructional aim in biology classrooms.
Meadows explains that conflict
management shows respect
for religious students who are likely
to experience conflict with evolution.
After a discussion of clashing
religious and scientific worldviews,
Meadows offers five recommendations
for teachers who wish
to adapt their teaching aims to
incorporate conflict management:
1. Respect your students’ religious
beliefs, 2. Present evolution as an
undeniable scientific understanding;
3. Model the difficult process
of facing biases and conflicts of
belief; 4. Consider teaching evolution
as a case study in the nature of
science; and 5. Don’t push religious
students who may not have
the emotional maturity to deal
with the conflicts between their
religious beliefs and their science
learning.

David F Jackson recounts his
personal experiences as a teacher
educator who moved from the liberal
northeastern US to more conservative
Georgia where many, if
not most, of his students are practicing
Christians. Jackson discusses
the overlap and conflict that science
teachers feel within "the personal
and the professional" aspects
of themselves. His approach to
mediate controversy within the
classroom is to be sympathetic to
students’ beliefs but maintain scientific
integrity. Additionally, he
encourages science teachers who
are Christian to give voice to their
own life experiences, exposing
and exploring the personal and
professional selves.

Co-editor Leslie S Jones presents
a personal reflection on the
impact of the evolution/creationism
controversy in her college biology
courses. Jones shares how she
came to a deeper understanding of
the conflict by learning about students
whose creationist backgrounds
have taught them to distrust
science. By having personal
conversations with her students,
she was able to gain trust and open
the door to learning evolution.
Jones's essay shows how important
it is for teachers to make a distinction
between belief and understanding,
especially when teaching topics that potentially challenge
students' beliefs.

In the concluding chapter,
"Teaching about origins in science:
Where now?", coeditor Michael
Reiss synthesizes the first twelve
chapters and identifies three
themes that ran through many of
the essays — teaching the nature
of knowledge, teaching about controversial
topics, and consideration
for the personal significance of the
controversy. Reiss offers insights
into the relationship between controversy
and uncertainty, explaining
that naïve students assume that
evolution is uncertain because of
its association with controversy. By
teaching about the relationship
between science and religion, educators
can inform students about
the controversy without unnecessarily
introducing a conflict
between science and religion.

The controversy surrounding
science and religion (and evolution
and creationism) is a resilient
social and political conflict. The
many perspectives involved in this
controversy make the arguments
complex, highly emotional, and
often deeply personal to individuals,
regardless of their position on
the controversy. Teachers, as intermediaries
between science and
the public, have a responsibility to
develop their own understanding
of the controversy's complexity.
Well-informed teachers realize that
absolutist notions of "right" and
"wrong" are blurred by the chance
to engage in dialog. This approach
to teaching about evolution is a
marked shift from more dogmatist
approaches to teaching science in
areas where belief and truth claims
may come into conflict. Although a
dogmatic approach to teaching science
is not scientifically inaccurate,
the approach could be insensitive
to students' beliefs.

While Teaching about
Scientific Origins may not be
appropriate for use in a K–12 science
classroom and does not offer
any narrow, prescriptive directives
for teaching evolution, the text
provides valuable insights into the
science–religion controversy,
examining its complexity from a
variety of educational vantage
points. I think that diverse perspectives,
such as those presented
in this book, lubricate conversations,
opening up safer spaces for
us to discuss the otherwise hidden
conflicts that educators and students
experience with regard to
creationism and origins.

References

[AAAS] American Association for the
Advancement of Science. 1990. Science for
All Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.

[AAAS] American Association for the
Advancement of Science. 1993.
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New
York: Oxford University Press.